Posted on 06/27/2006 5:06:32 AM PDT by 7thson
Ann Coulter states in her book on page 201 -
Darwin’s theory of evolution says life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which evolved into multicelled life forms, which over countless aeons evolved into higher life forms, including man, all as the result of the chance process of random mutation followed by natural selection, without guidance or assistance from any intelligent entity like God of the Department of Agriculture. Which is to say, evolution I the eminently plausible theory that the human eye, the complete works of Shakespeare, and Ronal Reagan (among other things) all came into existence purely be accident.
On page 202, she states The “theory” of evolution is:
1. Random mutation of desirable attributes (highly implausible)
2. Natural selection weeding out the “less fit” animals (pointless tautology)
3. Leading to the creation of new species (no evidence after 150 years of looking)
My question – is she correct in her statements? Is that Darwin’s theory?
On the ligher side, check out the first paragraph on page 212. LOL Funny!
It's a difference in both style and substance. That's why biologists have to hire wordsmiths to get grants.
I have a question about Godless, and this seems a good discussion to ask it. First of all, I love Ann and I love the book. I still have a couple of chapters left to read, but I have started into the evolution/Darwinism stuff. I think Coulter makes some great points, and she pokes some giant holes in the theory of evolution. However, I don't understand how she makes the leap from "evolution is wrong" therefore, "creationism/intelligent design is right." Seems to be a flaw in her logic. She even says herself that disproving one theory does not prove another. But isn't that kind of what she's doing? Maybe the answer is in the last few chapters and I just haven't read it yet, but I was wondering what others' opinions were on the subject.
???
Not the ones I know.
And it's not a style/substance difference; it's obfuscation.
Whose welcome?
They learn to spell your words, but they provide their own "obfuscation" (as you call it) so that it may be understood.
I doubt you've noticed it, but most writing done by most folks in the hard and bio sciences reads rather like those old mis-translations from Japanese in the camera/gadget operating instruction books.
Once again, you *really* need to work on your reading comprehension. That passage was written in opposition to the hypothesis that dogs were descended from jackals instead of wolves. When it says "dogs are gray wolves" in this context, it's saying that they're in the gray wolf clade, not the jackal clade, just as humans are apes. For pete's sake, even someone with your own limited reading comprehension should have noted the following passage ON THE SAME PAGE:
The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence.Relative. Not "same thing".
In any case, that website is based primarily on mtDNA data, which is known to be far less diverse in dogs than nuclear DNA. For the full story, see: The canine genome, Genome Research 15:1706-1716, 2005. It clearly describes the differences between the genomes of the domestic dog and that of the gray wolf. Dog genomes are distinct enough that not only can genetic tests easily distinguish wolf DNA from domestic dog DNA, it can even distinguish between different breeds of dogs -- something that wouldn't be possible if they were "the same genome", as you incorrectly claim.
Coulter echoes standard, long-since debunked creationist talking points straight from creationist websites (or from a major creationist personally).
She does not poke "some giant holes in the theory of evolution" but rather repeats the usual nonsense we see here day in and day out, and which has been debunked widely.
On your point...
However, I don't understand how she makes the leap from "evolution is wrong" therefore, "creationism/intelligent design is right."Its a standard creationist tactic. Any gap in the theory of evolution is "proof" PROOF I TELL YOU of the creationists claims.
Find a new fossil which fits in a gap? Well, now there are two gaps--the theory of evolution is in crisis! CRISIS I TELL YOU.
I think you get the idea. She's not doing science, nor reflecting the results of science accurately.
Not closely, no.
Biologists, doctors, chemists and other learned professionals came in and lied their heads off ~ all to help the lawyers win millions in judgments.
I think I'll decline to just take your word for it.
In any case, is it really your position that if a) witnesses lied in the implant trials then b) this excuses Coulter's lies about biology in her book? Is that really the unethical argument you want to cling to?
poor use of the word "obfuscation"
Oh, and as a grad student, one of my part time jobs was translating foreign student English into publishable format. Americans, as a rule, didn't have the same problem. I doublt they do now.
Thank you for your de facto concession of my points.
It's not just a clade thing ~
Biggest differences between wolves and dogs are that wolves have a longer snout and therefore a more dangerous muzzle. They tend to be bigger than most dogs.
But quite clearly they are the same species!!!
Coyotes, the Red Wolf, and the Gray Wolf interbreed freely in the wild. However, dogs and Gray wolves are more alike than they are like either the Red Wolf or Coyote.
Same, same, GI!!
It took several years before honest scientists could be found to put together a scientific case that disproved (conclusively) that silicon breasts were harmful.
In these cases, absent proveable intent, I don't see how anyone can say anyone else is a liar.
Note that Moses had no indepth understanding of evolutionary science when he brought together the documents that constitute the Pentatuch. Still, he has two creation myths in there. Did he lie?
I'm afraid you'd be forced to concede that Moses didn't lie because of two reasons ~ 1. He had no evidence to the contrary of his belief, and 2. He had no intent to lie.
Dogs are in the process of speciation.
Very few dogs can still interbreed with wolves in nature.
Dachsunds and other very small breeds are at the end of a spectrum. Mating will not occur. Huskie females are ocassionally backbred to wolves.
CM
They are not in the process of speciation ~ they are in the process of being bred to make it possible for them to live around human beings.
Cordwainer Smith probably had it right ~ in the end the cats, dogs, cattle, and every other domestic animal is given enough intelligence and other features (by people) to make them barely indistinguishble from humans.
10,000 years is hardly long enough to get speciation going with your higher mammals.
By definition, if two plants or animals of appropriate sexes cannot inerbreed in the wild, they are of different species.
Fungi, Myxomycota, Archea have different rules.
You didn't read post 238 very well, did you?
Courtesy ping to Ichneumon.
Basically, Ann Coulter is to Charles Darwin as Michael Moore is to Adam Smith.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.